D. Plans for Program Improvement and Recommendations for Legislation
The Department proposes to withdraw funding for this program. Federal
funds appear unnecessary as a stimulant to States to provide State-based
aid because State expenditures for grant aid have continued to expand even
as Federal funding has dropped or remained level in recent years. Also*
about half the States considerably overmatch the Federal allotment. The
other States have been sustained through a development period and will
now be more able to provide both halves of their student assistance out-
E. Supporting Studies and Analysis Cited inSection C Above
1. Cooperative Institutional Research Programs of the Higher Education
Research Institute - Annual Survey of Freshmen 1980-81 through 1983-
84, unpublished tables derived by Planning and Evaluation Service of
the Department of Education, 1984.
2. State Student Incentive Grant (SSIG) Data Summary Reports, SSIG Pro-
gram files, Division of Policy and Program Development, Office of
Student Financial Assistance, Office of Postsecondary Education,
Department of Education, 1984.
3. Data Trends, Fiscal Years 1978-83 -- State Student Incentive Grant
Program, May 1984.
F. Other Supporting Data
Table 2 portrays the distribution of State grants to freshmen by race,
sex? and family income for the fall of 1983. It indicates that women
have slightly higher participation rates and lower average awards in all
but the highest income group.
Overall black participation in State Grant programs is higher than
non-black participation, and the average awards in the two groups are
significantly different: $996 for blacks and $767 for non-black students.
At the high-income level, black students participate at a greater rate
than non-black students while at lower-income levels non-blacks partici-
pate at a greater rate than blacks.65